From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 05 06:23:10 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 May 2006 06:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc0Gf-0000P6-Mk for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 06:22:49 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.236]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc0Gd-0000Oy-Iu for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 06:22:49 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i13so602380wra for ; Fri, 05 May 2006 06:22:46 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=QoavbQt54wCwUj6AYkMv4DhASqX+rgVZhefWWs27bBb7c1lZk1XsdJ/cAS4dE0bN//cSP4Us7y7R9+CcwrNIY5uFyzbywisyAXAvOodFHeKo4mDUutL4KRL85q4jNI3jZ9IID81yX9dOA5ZRzlDwtoE/ZCec1GNXYtvsoKGcO8I= Received: by 10.54.71.3 with SMTP id t3mr942990wra; Fri, 05 May 2006 06:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.18 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2006 06:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605050622x4441aa2fm74b783120ddd402@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 10:22:46 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605031836w12547ba3n87934504df64c309@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605040604s4366e278h5385c63dc7c0aacc@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605041643p201da7e1rdc57bb7f1339e9ed@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605041806w4585221dt79a30699d83a985d@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11388 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > The point that I'm getting at is: if {le} basically precludes some > certain subset of {lo} that could be specified by some cmavo, then > this means that it precludes that cmavo. And that's a strange way to > use a word. It's like saying that {le} is {lo}, but never {lo mu} (a > much more extreme example). I didn't mean to imply that that is the basic function of {le}, only that {le} does in fact do that. I was agreeing with your: > What does it mean to have the > bear "in mind"? Is it opposed to, say, "any bear", or "bears in > general", or "bearness", or "all bears typically"? So I think that yes, {le} is opposed to that. > {lo ro cribe} means "all bears", yes? Yes. > What does {le ro cribe} mean? What if by that same {le cribe} > I have "in mind" all bears? Wouldn't > it then be the same as {lo ro cribe}? If not, then why is it that I > can't have all bears "in mind"? Maybe you can, but "all bears" is not the same as "bears in general". Perhaps {lo ro bruna be mi} and {le ro bruna be mi} are almost indistinguishable, but the more open the class, the more the differences between generic and particular reference can kick in. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.